SynthesisPLoS medicine2008
A systematic review of studies that aim to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials in children.
Synthesis in PLoS medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
74 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Outcomes in Children and Adolescents With Overweight or Obesity Exposed to Physical Activity Interventions: An Umbrella Review Covering Over 1200 Trials.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Pooled it
- Identifying common health indicators from paediatric core outcome sets: a systematic review with narrative synthesis using the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Pooled it
- Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries in adults: a systematic methodological survey.International wound journal · 2021Pooled it
- Assessing the engagement of children and families in selecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and developing their measures: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021Pooled it
- Defining outcome measures in juvenile idiopathic arthritis associated uveitis by a systematic review analysis: do we need a consensus?Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2019Pooled it
- Primary outcomes reporting in trials of paediatric type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Nutritional support in children and young people with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Binocular versus standard occlusion or blurring treatment for unilateral amblyopia in children aged three to eight years.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review of outcome measures in trials of pediatric anaphylaxis treatment.BMC pediatrics · 2014Pooled it
- Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies.PLoS medicine · 2011Pooled it
- In search of quality evidence for lifestyle management and glycemic control in children and adolescents with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review.BMC pediatrics · 2010Pooled it
- Frankel 2 appliance versus the Modified Twin Block appliance for Phase 1 treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusion in children and adolescents:The Angle orthodontist · 2020Trial
- Three lessons from a randomized trial of massage and meditation at end of life: patient benefit, outcome measure selection, and design of trials with terminally ill patients.The American journal of hospice & palliative careTrial
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn clinical trials the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Selection of inappropriate outcomes can compromise the utility of a trial. However, the process of selecting the most suitable outcomes to include can be complex. Our aim was to systematically review studies that address the process of selecting outcomes or outcome domains to measure in clinical trials in children. METHODS AND
findingsWe searched Cochrane databases (no date restrictions) in December 2006; and MEDLINE (1950 to 2006), CINAHL (1982 to 2006), and SCOPUS (1966 to 2006) in January 2007 for studies of the selection of outcomes for use in clinical trials in children. We also asked a group of experts in paediatric clinical research to refer us to any other relevant studies. From these articles we extracted data on the clinical condition of interest, description of the method used to select outcomes, the people involved in the selection process, the outcomes selected, and limitations of the method as defined by the authors. The literature search identified 8,889 potentially relevant abstracts. Of these, 70 were retrieved, and 25 were included in the review. These studies described the work of 13 collaborations representing various paediatric specialties including critical care, gastroenterology, haematology, psychiatry, neurology, respiratory paediatrics, rheumatology, neonatal medicine, and dentistry. Two groups utilised the Delphi technique, one used the nominal group technique, and one used both methods to reach a consensus about which outcomes should be measured in clinical trials. Other groups used semistructured discussion, and one group used a questionnaire-based survey. The collaborations involved clinical experts, research experts, and industry representatives. Three groups involved parents of children affected by the particular condition.
conclusionsVery few studies address the appropriate choice of outcomes for clinical research with children, and in most paediatric specialties no research has been undertaken. Among the studies we did assess, very few involved parents or children in selecting outcomes that should be measured, and none directly involved children. Research should be undertaken to identify the best way to involve parents and children in assessing which outcomes should be measured in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.